The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.

The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.

The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.

To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol).
Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09UNROME40.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000040
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
TREASURY FOR L.MORRIS, NSC FOR C.PRATT, USDA FORG.DOUVELIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PRELEAIDPHUMFAOUN
SUBJECT: FAO COUNCIL APPROVES NOVEMBER FOOD SECURITY SUMMIT, REVIEWS
REFORM PROGRESS AND CFS RENEWAL
¶1. This message is sensitive but unclassified. Not for
internet distribution or distribution outside the USG.
Summary:
-------
¶2. (SBU) During the 136th session of FAO Council, from June
15-19, members debated the merits of a proposal from Director
General Diouf to host a Heads-of-State world food security
"summit" in Rome this November. Following long and sharp debate
over appropriate timing and proper planning, members eventually
agreed to the proposal, though divisions were clear between
developing and developed states on the issue. An open-ended
working committee comprised of FAO member states must now
negotiate the expected objectives of the summit, and FAO's
Finance Committee in late July will review its funding plans (to
be paid entirely from voluntary contributions). Council debate
also covered details of FAO's reform plan implementation, its
financial situation, efforts to "revitalize" the Committee on
World Food Security (CFS) - including efforts to create a new
"High Level Panel of Experts" - and a host of other technical
issues. End summary.
November Food Summit Approved
----------------------------
¶3. (SBU) The most difficult issue debated during the 136th
session of FAO Council was a proposal first made in October 2008
by DG Diouf to host a world food security summit in November,
2009 attached to the biennial FAO Conference. The discussion
lasted over three days, with a clear split between G-77 (mostly
in support) and the EU (minus France), Norway and Canada, whose
position was that a summit in 2009 was premature. Key points
raised by Norway, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
Japan, Colombia, , and others pertained mostly to concerns over
the proposed timing of such an event, and concerns over Diouf's
proposed objectives. The U.S. emphasized that any summit must
be funded exclusively through extra-budgetary resources and
proposed that a detailed financing plan be presented to the FAO
Finance Committee at its July meeting. In order to lead
discussion over setting objectives for the summit, the U.S.
proposed formation of an open-ended working group which would
work closely with the Independent Chair of Council. The Council
eventually endorsed both proposals.
¶4. (SBU) Members of the G77, led by repeated emotional appeals
by Brazil, were vocal in their support for a November summit.
Malaysia and Indonesia broke ranks with their Asia group
colleagues, however, expressing reservations about the timing,
particularly in light of overlap with a planned APEC Summit in
Singapore. Further controversy ensued following the Chair
allowing the DG's representative to read a list of 154 countries
which supposedly "supported" the summit. Members were incensed
that no caveats were included regarding conditions imposed on
that support, and generally objected to the manner in which the
Independent Chair of the Council (Iran) addressed the issue. As
a result, Norway threatened to take its offer of $450,000 off
the table for funding of FAO's reform plan. On the final day of
talks, the EU finally accepted the November timeframe,
effectively ending the debate.
FAO Reform; Funding the Immediate Plan of Action (IPA)
-------------------------------------
¶5. (U) Status of reforms: FAO management reported that its
reform process was the most ambitious one across the UN system,
with an IPA containing more than 260 activities that should be
implemented as an integrated package over the coming three
years. These activities are grouped into 14 project areas led
by project teams with both headquarters and decentralized office
staff, and that work is progressing well. Almost 60 percent of
the IPA activities are already being implemented, two percent on
hold, and four percent already completed. FAO Management
reported that a "Root and Branch" review by Ernst and Young
identified, after further revision, cost savings a total net
savings toward the costs of reform of USD 7.8 million during the
coming seven years and biennial net savings of USD 13 million
thereafter. Management stressed the challenge of launching
certain reforms in light of a shortfall in voluntary funding for
UN ROME 00000040 002 OF 003
a handful of sequenced reforms such as an enterprise risk
management study, creation of partnerships, and some human
resource management plans.
¶6. (U) IPA Trust Fund: A discussion ensued on the currently
low level of funding for the 2009 portion needed for FAO's
reform plans. Management noted that of the roughly 17 million
necessary for 2009 reform projects, only four million (of
approximately 7 million pledged) had actually been received -
putting sequenced reform plans in jeopardy. They called on
members to meet the requirements and fulfil their pledges. The
U.S. point that it continued to look for ways to provide a
contribution for FAO reform was disappointing to FAO management
and to EU members who have so far provided nearly 90 percent of
monies received. During the same debate, Pakistan, Brazil and
other G-77 members divisively insisted that no regular program
funds should be diverted toward FAO reform in 2009, even in the
unlikely event of further "windfall" savings from unexpected
sources. Language permitting the diversion of such funds had
already been agreed to earlier in Finance Committee, thus
angering the Egyptian Chair of that committee, and raising
doubts over the G-77's commitment to reform.
FAO Finances: Punishing Those in Arrears
------------------------------
¶7. (SBU) During a review of FAO arrears, the EU (driven,
reportedly by France) proposed four-steps designed to deal with
states in arrears, including (a) restriction for eligibility in
Council elections and loss of seat in Finance and Program
Committees, and Council Committees; (b) amendments of sanctions
outlined in the Basic Texts so that only one full year of
arrears (instead of two) would result in sanctions; (c) external
borrowing costs due to late payments to be borne by countries
with outstanding contributions; (d) rigorous application of
existing regulations on loss of voting rights." The EU further
recommended developing a set of guidelines setting out
conditions for accepting voluntary contributions from Members in
arrears (Comment: The effort seems directly pointed at the U.S.,
who is only now clearing out arrears from 2008 and prior. We
expect this effort to dissipate once our 2008 Euro arrears are
cleared out, which weunderstand in is motion. End comment).
Committee on World Food Security
----------------------------
¶8. (U) CFS/Legal Issues. Agenda Item 18 concerned the reports
of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM) and
was divided into: 1) Changes in the Basic text required to
implement the IPA; and 2) a proposed amendment to the
Constitution regarding the Committee on Food Security (CFS).
The CCLM received thanks for its work on changes to FAO's Basic
Texts, which were accepted in full without controversy. One
controversial issue - selection of a Director for a new Office
of Evaluation - was removed from the agenda and will be debated
in the Committee of Conference/Independent External Evaluation
(COC-IEE) group and the Program Committee. French proposals to
amend Articles III and V of the Constitution to raise the level
of the CFS to a Committee of Conference, and to erase a
requirement for CFS to report to Council on Program and Budget
matters were more problematic. Although all members agreed with
the goal of strengthening the CFS, many were sceptical on the
French proposals, calling for a response from UN New York's
Legal Office on reporting lines to UNGA and ECOSOC. They were
also leery of removing the requirement for CFS to work through
Council on budget issues, in compliance with recent changes in
FAO's reform plan. With consensus absent, the matter was
diverted to a "Friends of the Chair" group where Jordan took the
lead in negotiating language to: 1) send the matter back to the
CFS contact group for further discussion; 2) direct the contact
group to work through the CCLM on any refinements to the
language; 3) request FAO Legal to seek clarification from UN New
York; and 4) direct the DG to forward France's proposal to
member states at least 120 days prior to November 2009
Conference, without prejudice to the outcome of talks. This
language was eventually approved by Council.
CFS - High Level Panel of Experts
---------------------------
UN ROME 00000040 003 OF 003
¶9. (SBU) Members also debated a proposal from DG Diouf to form
a new High Level Panel of Experts as an adjunct body to assist a
reformed Committee on World Food Security (CFS). After numerous
members pointed out problems with the manner in which FAO had
pursued the issue, responsibility for discussion on planning for
any new panel was assigned to the CFS Bureau and a Working Group
led by the U.S. Mission. The U.S. and others argued that
creation of an expert panel for the CFS should await clear
member ownership of the process, and clarity on funding,
selection modalities, and terms of references. The CFS Bureau
is expected to finalize a paper with its recommendations on
reform by late July, including on an expert panel, to prepare
for full debate on reform during the October session of CFS in
Rome. France, Brazil, and many other states are pressing hard
for the panel, despite lack of clarity on key details.
Other Items
--------------
¶10. (U) WFP reports. Due to dual parentage with FAO, there was
a session to review reports on WFP's 2007 and 2008 activities,
during which the U.S. commended WFP's commitment to promote food
security, while Cuba, Brazil, and Zimbabwe stressed the
importance of fulfilling WFP's dual mandate -- implementing
development activities alongside emergency operations.
¶11. (U) Regarding the calendar of future governing body and
technical committee meetings, discussion took place on the
possibility of maintaining the current schedule for meetings of
the Committee on Fisheries (COFI). Council concluded that once
ongoing deliberations on alternative meeting dates is concluded
between the COFI Chairman, FAO management, and member states,
the issue should be resolved in time for the next session of
Council in September 2009, for final approval by Conference in
November. Interventions by the U.S. mission highlighted this
issue for further debate among interested parties.
Comment
-------
¶12. (SBU) Approval of the November Summit was clearly the
highlight of the week's debate, and was gloated over by Diouf
during a joint Friday afternoon press conference (with WFP ED
Sheeran and an IFAD Assistant President) announcing new hunger
statistics topping one billion. While noting that a committee
of member states would negotiate the expected outcomes of the
summit, that did not stop him from listing the same proposed
outcomes that we had found rather problematic in draft Council
papers. We will need to continue monitoring the progress in FAO
reforms, to minimize the distraction factor, and any possible
resource diversions that could damage the organization's efforts
to modernize. This continues to be a challenge, though it will
be greatly assisted by a USG contribution to the IPA Trust Fund
for reform, giving us additional leverage to press effective
approaches to Human Resource management, financial oversight,
programmatic controls and evaluation. Last, Brazil made clear
that it wants to use the November summit as a means to push the
issue of Voluntary Guidelines on the Progressive Realization of
the "Right to Food" (a concept also pushed by many European
countries, but an issue that the U.S. has long opposed based on
legal grounds). We must be prepared to address this issue in
November, the CFS, and other multilateral fora.
BRUDVIGLA